Minister Conroy on: Promoting a civil and confident society online

This filter will not work and will hurt every internet user in the country. Spend the money on policing where it would do some good!

Posted by Mitchell / 23 Dec 2008 12:01pm / Permalink

Based on responses about the content filtering and appeals; "A content provider whose content is added to the blacklist as the result of a classification decision is notified by ACMA and can appeal to the Classification Review Board for reclassification of that content." Given that the blacklist is not going to be available for review, how is a content provider to appeal their being blacklisted if it's not possible to even confirm/deny that is the case? On a separate issue, how much public notification has been made of the proposal to implement this filtering? Other than on tech-aware sites and blogs, there appears to have been very little notification or discussion in mainstream media about the proposal, its' impacts or any debate around whether the general public are for, against or even aware of this. How many are aware of the partial opt-out that will be available? At what point will there be guarantees that a repeat of a similar issue with UK filtering and Wikipedia will not arise (suppressing of an article on a band simply because of an album cover image)? As far as I have been aware, there has been little to no notification of the proposal or any details as the limited turnout to the protests recently can attest and it appears that the government are attempting to surreptitiously enforce censorship without notification nor obvious methods to appeal the process. It may be said that, at this stage, there are no plans to filter further content, however there do not appear to be any checks and balances in place to prevent the wholesale filtering of any 'inappropriate' content (where the content cannot be reviewed) or anything that may not be to the liking of the current administration. It appears that we are not trusted to be able to make our own decisions nor be responsible for our own actions, and as usual, those pursuing illegal activities (those in scope of the filtering) will readily find methods to circumvent the filtering, ensuring that only the innocent and law abiding are persecuted. Ian K.

Posted by Ian K. / 23 Dec 2008 11:53am / Permalink

This is such a terrible idea. It would be so easy to bypass by using a overseas server like allot of big business do, access the internet through a central hub. Also as many people have stated it is only going to slow our connection speeds down, and we are already way behind the rest of the developed world in this respect. I thought Mr Rudd promised to Imorove the infrustructure of our Internet system not slow it down and censor it. This scheme is a joke!

Posted by Lou Harms / 23 Dec 2008 11:51am / Permalink

In it's first year of office Labor has been carefully negotiating it's way through a maze of many big issues and arguably making successful progress. Climate Change, Carbon Trading, Work Choices, Reconciliation, Defence purchasing, education, homelessness and the GFC. By contrast there are two issues that are most notable because they have mushroomed from beneath the public radar into full blown public messes that are not going to go away: the National Broadband Network and ISP Level Mandatory Internet Filtering. I can't conceive that the NBN debacle had to inevitably end in Telstra walking away. I can't conceive that the Rudd Government would use up it's political capital by forcing a non-issue like Mandatory Filtering on us all. What do those two failed management debacles have in common? Senator Stephen Conroy. Looking at the blatantly obvious tricky weasel words and techniques on this web site that Conroy is using to support his position - how are they any different from Ruddock and Co? Who are all those 'thinking' voters going to vote for next election, those who felt off-sided and estranged by Howard's trickery and sought salvation in the Rudd Government? Look for a sharply expanded Green Senate presence and a sharp drop in Labor's core vote - one of those voters will be me. I DO NOT WANT MANDATORY INTERNET FILTERING.

Posted by Phil / 23 Dec 2008 11:49am / Permalink

People, did you expect anything different from a Labor (communist) government when you voted them in. You reap what you sow.

Posted by Nathan / 23 Dec 2008 11:48am / Permalink

This is such a terrible idea. It would be so easy to bypass by using a overseas server like allot of big business do, access the internet through a central hub. Also as many people have stated it is only going to slow our connection speeds down, and we are already way behind the rest of the developed world in this respect. I thought Mr Rudd promised to Imorove the infrustructure of our Internet system not slow it down and censor it. This scheme is a joke!

Posted by Lou Harms / 23 Dec 2008 11:45am / Permalink

Senator, Do you understand the fundamental nature of the internet? If your answer is yes then you should already realise how futile it is to try and block content via a filter. While some content online is illegal what you are proposing is a filter of both illegal and legitimate content. What is to stop such a filter being abused by those in power to block content to which they don’t agree? This does not only mean political content (although that would be the most extreme form of censorship), but other legal content that may be acceptable to the vast majority of the population, but not to an influential lobby group or independent Member of Parliament who’ support the government needs to pass other legislation. Already the policy has progressed from the blocking of illegal content to the blocking of legal (if morally ambiguous) content. Add to that the announcement today that peer to peer traffic may be filtered as well, where will this stop? If it is illegal to monitor a phone conversation between two or indeed a group of people without a warrant how could it be legal to monitor/filter the digital traffic directly between their computers (not at the ISP) as would be required for a peer to peer filer? Both are valid forms of communication in the 21st century. If the government knows of illegal sites why are you only blocking them? Surely the best way to stop people accessing such material is to stop them at the source. If worldwide co-operation by local police forces can break rackets that supply SPAM to the world(see today’s Sydney Morning Herald 23/12/08) why can’t similar methods be used to arrest those responsible to distributing the illegal content? It seems that this policy is more to allow the government to win favour with small but vocal minorities and their few elected representatives and not to stop the issues of child abuse or illegal content. Senator if you wish to do something about child abuse it must start where the vast majority of the problem occurs. At Home. Not at your local ISP. Regards Colin (a concerned IT professional from Sydney)

Posted by Colin (a concerned IT professional from Sydney) / 23 Dec 2008 11:45am / Permalink

I would be interested in an explanation for the scope-creep of this issue. About a year ago, the plan was to protect children from inadvertently coming across pornography and other icky things, and there was supposed to be a completely untampered feed for everyone else who was mentally capable. Then somehow we ended up with the "child porn" issue. For a bit it was claimed that there would still be an untampered feed, and the criminal child porn would only be filtered through the clean feed. That makes no sense, so eventually we ended up with no untampered feed at all. Should you not have figured out exactly what you wanted before you started all this business? If the scope has crept that much in the last year (from protecting children to stopping crime, that's a large jump), how much will it change in the next year, or a year after its implementation? And will we know? How can we trust that this 'blacklist' software isn't doing more than is claimed? As public property, the software should be open-sourced and subject to public scrutiny. This would also benefit other nations looking to implement a similar thing.

Posted by Amos Robinson / 23 Dec 2008 11:41am / Permalink

Filtering the internet, including peer-to-peer communication is stunningly stupid. It's the equivalent of reading every single letter sent in Australia in order to deal with organized crime. The wrong tool, at the wrong level, and all it will do is interfere with law-abiding citizens. Conroy clearly doesn't understand the technology, and is being very poorly advised. Hopeless.

Posted by GV / 23 Dec 2008 11:34am / Permalink

This is an absurdly simplistic idea, and will only serve to hamper growth in what is one of the most rapidly expanding sectors of the economy. It will reduce the security of online commerce by enabling attacks on encrypted communications channels. Will the goverment pay compensation to online businesses that lose revenue due to this half baked idea? If this goes through, I will be advising all of my clients to set up their online businesses offshore. I may even have to take my own business offshore, it's already hard enough competing on the internet with our limited infrastructure. I have never voted Liberal in my life, but will certainly do so if Senator Conroy continues along this misguided path. This will not stop bad people being bad, but will just be a hindrance to the other 99.99%, and confirm Australia's place as a technological backwater.

Posted by Sean / 23 Dec 2008 11:33am / Permalink

None of Minister Conroy's arguments have answered the following issues: 1. The filter can be easily bypassed. Millions of dollars will be wasted 2. Future governments will use the filter in ways in wasn't intended. 3. There is no transparency in the process. I've been a labor voter for decades but this ridiculous filter will cost my vote. Arguing that the filter is different to China's simply because of it's intent doesn't hold water.

Posted by Matto / 23 Dec 2008 11:23am / Permalink

Well - I have to say, I am impressed that you have a blog on this and actually solicit comments from the general public on this issue.

Now - will you listen to the comments? I haven't had time to trawl through them all, but I'm guessing that I would struggle to find a single one that supports your proposed compulsory censorship of the Internet. I won't go through the multiple arguments against it, as they have been well documented by many qualified people.

So what's the purpose of this blog? You have made some attempts to counter some of the key arguments, however I don't find a single argument convincing at all.

But that shouldn't matter. Senator Conroy - the people of Australia are clearly telling you that we do not want this censorship in our daily lives. We have had enough of nanny state policies by governments of any flavour.

By all means give us opt-in or opt-out ISP-level filters, for those that want them. But you ignore the voice of the Australian people at your peril, and they will not tolerate this an attack on our liberties. You claim it is to 'protect the children' - frankly I don't believe you, and neither do most of the Australian voters, especially since the arguments that it will do nothing of the sort have been so well documented by people with far more IT knowledge than the Federal Government.

I hope it never comes to this and Liberals, Greens and others block it in the Senate. Thankfully we still have a realtively robust democracy with the checks and balances that this type of censorship can be easily used to subvert. However, if you insist on pushing ahead with this unpopular policy, you will have no-one but yourselves to blame if you lose the next election.

Posted by Papachango / 23 Dec 2008 11:22am / Permalink

What's more dangerous to children: a) Living in a totalitarian society where everything is "cleaned" at the whim of a party trying to buy the vote of an extreme right wing senator? or b) Very occasional inadvertent exposure to material that may (or may not, where is the evidence?) damage children? I know which society I'd prefer my children to live in.

Posted by Geoff / 23 Dec 2008 11:21am / Permalink

Could you please not waste any more of our money on this? Think about how much data is moved through an ISP and see if there is any hardware that can support filtering in real-time? Use the money teaching people to be better parents instead of trying to help them with delusions of protection.

Posted by Maz / 23 Dec 2008 11:16am / Permalink

How will it be possible to conclusively prove that the filtering is working as promised? To test that the filter does actually block the sites mentioned in the ACMA blacklist, we will need to attempt to visit the site. If the filter works as promised, then the visit will be blocked. If the filter has failed, then we will demand a refund on our wasted dollars! We don't just take it on faith that the filter works as promised; we demand that the filtering process be fully audited. It's the same reasoning we apply to the accounts of public companies; the audit reports are all publically available to be perused and the auditor is responsible and accountable for their accuracy. Where is the audit trail for this filter?

Posted by Keong / 23 Dec 2008 11:15am / Permalink

Is the speed at which comments are being moderated and posted an indication of the reduced internet access speeds? Over 2 hours to post 90 comments.

Posted by billie / 23 Dec 2008 11:13am / Permalink

This is crazy. I'm an staunch Labor supporter, however, I can't agree with filtering something that people use so personally. People live their *lives* through their internet connection. You would be monitoring all traffic to and from my computer, which is not saving the kiddies, it is impinging on my right to privacy. The laws have already been eroded by the "war on terror" to the point that we saw Haneef tried, drawn, quartered and permanently labelled a terrorist suspect. What will it be like when bumbling government agencies can view data whenever they like? Internet Filtering is just the tip of the iceberg. If you want to save the kids, fix our education system so they aren't dunces, start regulating the media and start being the role models they deserve. Don't pander to a minority to secure swing votes from religious zealots. If you want to want to stand apart from the Liberals that ruined this country, it is simple - don't walk in their shoes. Wake up. These are difficult times and I still trust you to get us through, but this sort of move is going to be hugely unpopular with most of the population. They might not realise it now, but they will when their Internet speed drops to a crawl, or they can't get to an incorrectly blacklisted website, or are arrested because the government snooped their Internet connection and didn't like the content of their private emails and have deemed it sedition (Give someone the power to do something, and they will abuse it eventually).

Posted by Bobski / 23 Dec 2008 11:07am / Permalink

I helped vote you guys into Government, and thanks to this repressive idea, I intend to help vote you out of Government. Whenever a Government seeks to censor life to that of a seven year old, adults become outraged. And so they should. Keep your pious sentiments to yourself, and leave responsible parenting to us. The thing about censorship that people really hate is that Governments set themselves up as arbitrators of morality. What makes you an authority? Why can’t some future Government - probably yours - decide that the censorship scheme should be extended? Sorry, but you just aren’t that trustworthy. Drop the idea or it will be a weight around your neck. ‘Workchoices’ suffered under the same sort of ideological dementia. See where that got them…. Hope you've enjoyed your time on that side of the house.

Posted by Fish / 23 Dec 2008 11:03am / Permalink

This IS restriction of speech - i dont care what you say about it! Stop mothering people - we are all adults & have the common sense to know what is right & wrong. Parents - get filtering software to stop your children looking at inappropriate material, but dont put that restriction on me! Australia's technology is rapidly going down the toilet.

Posted by flash / 23 Dec 2008 11:03am / Permalink

I support “end user empowerment” as one of the effective strategy to manage complex content issues, coupled with practical and appropriate harnessed and trusted Cyber Environment, which will assist Australians and our children to manage their Internet, without silencing home-based not for profit content providers and students publishing political, academic, scientific and artistic content.. Properly harvested and appropriately policed network must have enormous capabilities and enablers as a tool for education, entertainment, interaction, global engagements and must provide opportunities for innovative content creation for public, private and commercial communities. I believe Australian government intends to protect the equal rights of everyone (as long as they don’t infringe the rights and freedoms of others) and preserve human rights, where civil liberties are fully respected.

Posted by Ken Kadiroglu / 23 Dec 2008 11:02am / Permalink

Dear Senator Conroy, I emailed you asking some legitimate and technical questions regarding the filter. I got a letter in the mail that contained Internet Filter propaganda, nothing clearly written by yourself and nothing that addressed my concerns. I have emailed you again, with more questions, and I hope you actually respond this time. I am ashamed to say I voted for Labor in the past election. We were all so blinded by Rudd's promises of high speed Internet, unbeknown to us that there are other things in store. Don't you think it's ironic that Labor wants to introduce fast Internet, but they want to introduce a filter that will slow it down? Smart move... When this filter takes place, I hope you're prepared for resistance. I promise to provide all materials necessary to anyone who wants them to bypass your filter. I will create videos. I will create tutorials. I'll even come to your house and show you how to bypass it (if you live in Brisbane). I urge all you others to follow me and do the same. Its unfortunate for you that many other people like myself in IT will supply knowledge to bypass your filter so easily. Enjoy Conroy, your filter will soon be another worthless Labor investment. Dwayne.

Posted by Dwayne Charrington / 23 Dec 2008 10:59am / Permalink

Can government provide an anonymous "OPT OUT" system so that internet users who concern about privacy or download speed can bypass the filtering system and attain maximum broadband speed?

Posted by ecommerce is good / 23 Dec 2008 10:58am / Permalink

Sorry but you are not listening. Even this is 'subject to moderation' / censorship, which is what scares me. The fact the a group of unknown unelected public servants will have the power to veto what the people of Australia have access to over the web is frightening. The Australian government can not take the role of parent for every single child in this country. When my wife and I have children it is OUR responsibility to monitor and control what access our children have to all information from all sources, no one else. This is a question of freedom of speech. If I do not have ready access to all the sides of any story then I am being subjected to a 'filtered' view. It is far too easy for our unknown unseen group to judge anything as being to obscene for a word in it or an allusion to something deemed 'inappropriate', if said web page happened to indicate corruption or the complicity of a representative of the Australian government in an illegal scheme and 'we will just filter that out, because its too obscene for childrens eyes......' Censorship on this scale that is government controlled is simply stupid. I fear for my freedom.

Posted by Chris / 23 Dec 2008 10:58am / Permalink

The goverment promised before the election that anyone would be free to opt out of the filter completely. They have no mandate for a mandatory filter. The government might claim that the filter won't be used for any political agenda... but they have been less than honest up until now and their latest promises certainly don't bind future goverments. And now there's threats of filtering peer to peer, which even China and Saudi Arabia have not attempted. As to the blacklist being kept "secret" - in order to enable an ISP level filter the list will have be released to about 700 ISPs, every one of whom will either oppose the policy outright or will have employees who oppose it. The list will be leaked, with consequences the government has conveniently spelled out in this blog entry. The filter policy will enable child abuse.

Posted by Daniel / 23 Dec 2008 10:56am / Permalink

Grab-bag of responses and thoughts: What measures/procedures will there be to address the false positives and legitimate uses of BitTorrent and other P2P? If the mandatory layer is just a blacklist, how can P2P be effectively blocked? If you think obscuring the mechanisms used to block unwanted traffic is your only defense against bypass, please read or consult with renowned security expert Bruce Schneier. Just because the government doesn't view this as a Freedom of Speech issue doesn't meant the constituency doesn't. The Chinese government doesn't seem to think its a freedom of speech issue either... How is it that ACMA has not prohibited the showing and distribution of the Simpsons when it clearly depicts child abuse? Will Simpsons child abuse depictions be blocked during the filter trial? http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2447465.htm Finally, why or why is there so much obfuscation and borderline ethical behaviour from the government on this? Pick one "truth", tell us what it is, and stick to it. Otherwise, all we hear is "another bloody politician who cant tell the truth from his own fantasies".

Posted by Froosh / 23 Dec 2008 10:55am / Permalink

There are a number of things I would like to NOT see on the net, child porn for example. However, I use a very good antivirus application & parental control software which allows me to control what is viewed from my computer. I do NOT believe this is a Government role, it is up to the individual. I sense danger in this in that Government containing for example members of the Religious Right or even radical leftist politicians basically would have a right to censor anything they don't like. This is not protectoin, this is dictatorship. Go away, Steven. Spend taxpayers' money on something which doesn't place MORE power in the hands of politicians.

Posted by peteqbn / 23 Dec 2008 10:55am / Permalink

I'm all for a fair go and treating this trial as a testing ground and research. When the testing has concluded, I'm assuming the test/survey report will be made readily available to taxpayers for close scrutiny? To suddenly implement and control the beast with only Optus and IInet as a relatively small test sample is very restricted and narrow. The test results will not reflect a good representation of the Australian Internet. If the results show unfavourably how can you implement and control the system? How do you deem the system to be 'successful' and suitable for implementation? Filtering over 80% of unwanted content? Not losing internet speed 10% of the time? Would the money not be better spent attacking the illegal content directly? Can we not setup a worldwide cybercrime unit with funding from worldwide powers including Australia dedicated to actively pursuing and arresting these people? Would this not make it a safer world for all, and not just Australians? Why are we 'leading' the way by pursuing to implement a system that has so many unknowns? The internet is a beast that will move without boundaries, you put up a brick wall, people will find a way to work through/over/under/around it. What is being implemented only 'slows' the process and quite possibly wasting alot of good money that frankly, I'd be happy to see being used for increasing web speeds. Google Japan Internet - over 60mbps on an average user connection! We can't even achieve that in our capital cities without major infrastructure overhauls. Mr Conroy, to me your future vote depends on how you handle interpreting the results and giving a green light to implement the system.

Posted by bloatedfish / 23 Dec 2008 10:55am / Permalink

What is the real reason your doing this Conroy? Is this simply an appeal the the Christrian right? Why is he doing this? Does anybody out there have any ideas?

Posted by snowman8003 / 23 Dec 2008 10:55am / Permalink

The goverment promised before the election that anyone would be free to opt out of the filter completely. They have no mandate for a mandatory filter. The government might claim that the filter won't be used for any political agenda... but they have been less than honest up until now and their latest promises certainly don't bind future goverments. And now there's threats of filtering peer to peer, which goes beyond even what China and Saudi Arabia are doing. This thing is getting scarier with every passing week. As to the blacklist being kept "secret" - in order to enable an ISP level filter the list will have be released to about 700 ISPs, every one of whom will either oppose the policy outright or will have employees who oppose it. The list will be leaked, with consequences the government has conveniently spelled out in this blog. The filter policy will enable child abuse.

Posted by Daniel / 23 Dec 2008 10:50am / Permalink

You people are EVIL!! Can't you what you are doing?? DO NOT CENSOR THE PEOPLE!!!!

Posted by MeMeAndMe / 23 Dec 2008 10:48am / Permalink

I would like to share a fantastic statement with you from the 2008 Horizon Report Australia New-Zealand Edition. A research paper put together by Australia's leading e-learning practitioners and innovators in tertiary education. This is noted as the No.1 Critical Challenges for the education sector (relating to the Internet/Education Networks): "Protectionism limits access to materials, ideas, and collaborative opportunities. Security concerns too often go too far. Both policies and firewalls are severely limiting access to — and hampering the utility of — the Internet, the use of digital materials, and many benefits of social networking. Adding to this, the mindset of central network planners and administrators is often at odds with the increasingly user-centric nature of Internet applications and tools, limiting innovation." See http://wp.nmc.org/horizon-anz-2008/section/critical-challenges/. I think this says it all. I hear now that you are considering blocking peer-to-peer software. That is truly pure madness. Do you know how many common web applications use peer-to-peer technology? I don't think you do. Probably most of the new social communication and collaboration technologies use peer-to-peer in some way. Skype is one example. Do you know what Skype is? Do you use it? So, what, ban Skype because you someone could use it to send a file to someone? I am sorry Mr Conroy, I am just in shock and so frustrated about your plans. I honestly can't believe it. Expect protests to increase in numbers and intensity. I honestly hope that your department drops this nonsense and focuses on providing faster and more affordable Internet to Australia instead of wasting your time with this.

Posted by SHL / 23 Dec 2008 10:48am / Permalink

Remember how the goverment promised before the election that anyone would be free to opt out of the filter completely? The government might claim not to be planning to use the filter for any political agenda... but they have been less than honest up until now and their claims certainly don't bind future goverments. And now there's threats of filtering peer to peer, which goes beyond even what China and Saudi Arabia are doing. This thing is getting scarier with every passing week. As to the blacklist being kept "secret" - in order to have an ISP level filter the list will have be released to about 700 ISPs, every one of which will either oppose the policy outright or will have employees who oppose it. The list will be leaked, with consequences the government has conveniently spelled out in this blog. The filter policy will enable child abuse.

Posted by Daniel / 23 Dec 2008 10:47am / Permalink

I am curious as to the reasons why this filter is mandatory and not something a user can opt out of by choice as previously was the case. Many people believe it is an attack on their rights on what they can or cannot access and to what extent content on the internet will be filtered, with that being set in stone as well as leaving no option for the general public to unsubscribe to the service it's no wonder there is such widespread distaste for this proposal. If there was any amendment made to this proposal, it should leave the public with a choice to turn off the filter as is the case with any other filtering schemes or programs. I have to say that I completely disagree with the proposal and would rather see the money spent on this filter or something more valuable, such as contributing to the broadband infrastructure or increasing the funding to the relevant law enforcement agencies that fight illegal activites/hosted material.

Posted by kavzee / 23 Dec 2008 10:46am / Permalink

Stephen Conroy, on the 22nd December you wrote:

"We wouldn't have set up this site (or published negative comments on it) if we were trying to close down discussion."

The next day, you write:

"This is the last post and we will be turning off comments across all topics at 3 pm tomorrow"

Is this not a little convenient?

Posted by Dennis Nelrum / 23 Dec 2008 10:44am / Permalink

Senator Conroy, I am a frequent and heavy user of the Internet. Speed and access to sites are critical for its function.

Personally, I don't have a problem with inappropriate content. I don't look for it and it does not impact me, except for some spam which I just delete.

Your proposal to provide filters is misinformed and inappropriate.

It will greatly impact everyone who uses the internet, and it will not provide any benefits.

It will not stop those who seek inappropriate content. They will find ways around the filters.

It will slow down the Internet and block legitimate sites.

Your efforts would be better directed towards:

* Anti spam measures - spam still impacts almost everyone and contains most of the inappropriate content that people get.

* Policing to track and apprehend paedophile and other criminal activities on the Internet.

Your filter is a completely inappropriate measure that will impact everyone except those it is supposed to target.

Posted by Peterc / 23 Dec 2008 10:42am / Permalink

come on this is just BS! u cannot possibly filter p2p! if that was possible then surely the record/film companies would have been funding and paying governements all over the world to block p2p! i don't like the idea that kids r being abused, however this does nothing for those kids who are abducted and used.. nor does it do anything for the huge rise in attempted abductions weve seen this year alone in nsw! incredible! Child abductions rates higher in my books than some kiddy accidently stumbing onto a gambling or porn site for craps sake! no kid should be on the net unsupervised and id like to ban every kid from the net.. go back to books for goodness sake! dont pull the its not like china on us.. uve said that this would block illegal stuff like banned films or banned video games.. well lets just get that whole 18+ r rating sorted out.. whats happening here? first video games and now the net.. we are the lucky country where nothing is more than a 15 year old can handle.. screw the adults that work and pay the politicians wages eh?!! this is a kids world?! dont bother with that 99% coverage of aust for broadband coz if this goes ahead then no one will want broadband in the end!!

Posted by tiffany / 23 Dec 2008 10:40am / Permalink

Conroy Censorship

Posted by Dennis / 23 Dec 2008 10:38am / Permalink

As a person who is not very computer literate this could well mean that I do not get access to stuff I need to look up in the course of doing my volunteer work because I may type in words that the big brother scheme finds offensive. I think the government has gone down a dangerous path and the worst of it is that once something is in place it is much harder to get rid of it, this should not be introduced at all. We are not chinese , we value our freedom of speech and the right to access all methods of information without fear or favour. To say it is going to protect children is a complete furphy there are already methods in place to do that.

Posted by margaret / 23 Dec 2008 10:36am / Permalink

I think this filter concept is a bad idea it’s not right to punish the masses because of a few rotten eggs. Unlike others I intend to take responsibility for my own children’s future and not take rely on a silly Internet filter to protect my children.

Internet filter is a not a good idea and should not be moved forward.

Posted by joejoeinc / 23 Dec 2008 10:34am / Permalink

I start by noting the minister has failed to respond to the letter I sent him two months ago regarding this issue. Through out this process, the minister has revealed that he doesn't care about what other Australians think. He has received constant criticism about the scheme from the media, from ISPs and from concerned individuals across Australia - yet far from easing the scheme, he has recently announced he wants to extend the scheme to peer-to-peer protocols. The minister fails to grasp the issue is not about freedom of speech or child pornography. Rather it is about a technology that reduces the speed with which Australians access the Internet and a government blacklist that will not be subject to external review. The Howard government's PC-level filters, were good for business, good for parents and good for Australia. This scheme, by contrast, is bad for business and bad for Australia. That the minister chooses to defy the opinion of those in industry and of a large number of Australians makes this a very sad day for Australian politics.

Posted by Mark / 23 Dec 2008 10:33am / Permalink

I start by noting the minister has failed to respond to the letter I sent him two months ago regarding this issue. Through out this process, the minister has revealed that he doesn't care about what other Australians think. He has received constant criticism about the scheme from the media, from ISPs and from concerned individuals across Australia - yet far from easing the scheme, he has recently announced he wants to extend the scheme to peer-to-peer protocols. The minister fails to grasp the issue is not about freedom of speech or child pornography. Rather it is about a technology that reduces the speed with which Australians access the Internet and a government blacklist that will not be subject to external review. The Howard government's PC-level filters, were good for business, good for parents and good for Australia. This scheme, by contrast, is bad for business and bad for Australia. That the minister chooses to defy the opinion of those in industry and of a large number of Australians makes this a very sad day for Australian politics.

Posted by Mark / 23 Dec 2008 10:29am / Permalink

Hi All

There appear to be a number of questions left unanswered here.

1. Currently under the Guidelines for the Classification of Films And Computer Games state that video games are not permitted to exceed MA 15+. What restriction level will be permitted for web sites? Will this restriction level be part of the legislation or something that can be changed later without public debate.

2. The RC (Refused Classification) rating includes content that is "Detailed instruction or promotion in matters of crime or violence". This would allow the ACMA to block content which instructs people in non-violent civil disobedience. For example if the Brisbane right-to-march protests of the late 70s or the Franklin dam protests of the early 80’s were organised via the web then ACMA would be entitled to block those sites.

3. The RC (Refused Classification) rating also includes “Material promoting or encouraging proscribed drug use”. Could an organisation such as the Country Women’s Association which is lobbying to allow the medical use of marijuana find its web site on the ACMA blacklist?

While the present government may not use the ACMA classifications to control free speech there’s nothing to prevent this proposed legislation from being used to do that in the future.

Posted by brains95 / 23 Dec 2008 10:29am / Permalink

Here is a solution, make it optional.

Here is another solution, use an “Internet content PC software filter”. If people can’t install it, then provide them with a solution to installing it.

And another, Get a proper software provider to provide an “Internet content PC software filter”

I know, I know, create a model where the government can control and monitor the content that goes to everyone, via every ISP in Australia and make it compulsory. Who cares if it slows them down ‘a bit’ or they cannot see sites that they might want to get to. It is all for the good of the kids, that’s right, use the diatribe “doing it for the kids”, you will be able to get it past anyone. Of course we don’t care that you might not have kids or don’t want it, because it is not about ‘the kids’ anyway.

Posted by Dennis / 23 Dec 2008 10:28am / Permalink

This is a very bad idea. Protecting children is one thing, but "protecting" adults is something else. Criminals will circumvent the restrictions in minutes. The people who will suffer are those who try to have a legitimate and informed debate about a subject that the authorities consider to be taboo. Furthermore, law enforcement will struggle because the taboo subjects will be driven farther underground. I can't believe you are seriously considering such immature and ill-advised measures.

Posted by Dr Phil Bentley / 23 Dec 2008 10:25am / Permalink

So Mr Conroy didn't like the surrogacy laws in Victoria so he scampered across the border to get what he wanted. Do you suggest the same for Australians, that we circumvent the Labor parties filter because we don't agree with them? This stinks, the focus is on pornography, but adult content is not just images. It is also ideas and images which would not receive an R rating and therefore be blocked.

If you really do have the gumption to go ahead with this then at least have the testicular fortitude to legislate that your black list be reviewed by independent groups who can validate your concerns. I fear the next uber conservative government taking this and adding anything and everything to the black list.

Ditch the major parties people, fill the senate with independents and the Greens. At least dumb ideas wont make it past the lower house...

Posted by Dusty / 23 Dec 2008 10:24am / Permalink

The responsibility lies with the user/parents... not every single person in Australia. Don't turn us into a communist country. I will not be voting for this government again if this comes in.

Posted by Daniel / 23 Dec 2008 10:18am / Permalink

thank you for protecting me from myself!!!!

Posted by burnsoft / 23 Dec 2008 10:17am / Permalink

You mentioned that the failure with PC based filtering was to do with parents not having the understanding and technical knowledge to implement themselves. Why not make the ISP level filter optional? When someone signs up to a new internet contract the ISP is required to ask them if they want to be subject to the ISP level filter. That ways its very simple for parents to implement and and users who do not want to be subject to the filter dont have to.

Posted by Sam Purchase / 23 Dec 2008 10:10am / Permalink

Where is the demand for this filter coming from? Right wing groups? Industry? It appears to be extremely unpopular with the people. This has to be a viable action for your re-election, and I'm sure numbers would suggest more ppl don't want this than do. Listen to us, take polls on this or watch as this Govt is removed next election. Vote Green people.

Posted by Kieran Hutton / 23 Dec 2008 10:05am / Permalink

I absolutely agree with Heath M's comments. This IS argument about freedom of speech and blocking political content and to suggest otherwise is naïve. I have voted Labour all my life but if this half baked plan goes through I will be doing everything in my power to overthrow this government.

Posted by argy / 23 Dec 2008 10:03am / Permalink